It is not enough for an operating system to be low cost, reliable and capable of handling mission-critical applications. At some point in every OS's cycle of life, the question comes down to security and safety.
Ever since the entry of Linux into mainstream business computing, security gurus have been trying to measure its vulnerability to security breaches and attacks. They have even gone so far as to count the number of security alerts issued by Linux distributors to see how the numbers compare with those issued by Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) for Windows servers.
A definitive answered has eluded the experts, but that has not prevented them from taking sides in what usually devolves into a religious war over open-source versus closed-source operating systems.
Still, the crucial question plagues companies considering whether to go the open-source route: Is Linux a safe, secure operating system that you can bet your business on? And if it does have flaws, where are they?
News source: NewsFactor
Ever since the entry of Linux into mainstream business computing, security gurus have been trying to measure its vulnerability to security breaches and attacks. They have even gone so far as to count the number of security alerts issued by Linux distributors to see how the numbers compare with those issued by Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) for Windows servers.
A definitive answered has eluded the experts, but that has not prevented them from taking sides in what usually devolves into a religious war over open-source versus closed-source operating systems.
Still, the crucial question plagues companies considering whether to go the open-source route: Is Linux a safe, secure operating system that you can bet your business on? And if it does have flaws, where are they?
News source: NewsFactor
Tale of the Tape
It is unfair to compare the number of exploits of a Linux distribution like Red Hat (Nasdaq: RHAT) to Windows Server 2003 to determine whether Linux is safer than Windows, says Jan Hichert, CEO of Astaro, a Linux security solution developer. For one thing, there are more services running on a Linux distribution, Hichert told NewsFactor. But at the same time, attacks on Windows usually draw more attention, so it may seem like Windows is inherently less secure.
You also have to consider the amount of newer linux users who may not know how to secure their systems properly. One of the biggest security problems in Windows usually resides behind the keyboard, why should linux be any different.
And if you build up and run a m$ server with full office, net/nat, web. e-mail, file sharing and transfer, printing, database etc. server and than compare it with a linux with the same functionality (and when you're at it sum up all the prices of m$ components which aren't included in a win release).
And iff (yes, double 'f') you do that, than you'll be able to tell some difference.
p.s.: hell, i have to smile when i think of exchange or outlook (just for an example) and know that there are people who actually think these are secure, stable and trustworthy (no offence)
Come to think of it, most of your facts are questionable too.
Most of recent articles (fed up with them alright) compare a barenaked win+fixes with linux with it's metric tons of apps. And that's where I agree completely with Jan Hichert.
Why price turned up in my 2cents ? Not because I don't understand the issue, but because it's interesting to see how secure you get with m$ for all that money, and how secure you can get with linux for so less (but okay, let's drop this issue).
If you trust your win, so be it. I trust my linux more :7
And yes, I am l33t
Umm, well yes the OS does cost. Why install office on a server? net/nat, web, file/print sharing are there by default. There are plenty of free or low cost email servers available. There are also free databases available.
And you're smiling because you beileve exchange and outlook ARE secure, stable and trustworthy, right? Because they are. If you don't believe so, then you can make a lot of money explaining this to the thousands of companies that believe that it is secure.
"Why install office on a server?" - Okay, but then don't count flaws it's linux counterparts when one counts bugs and fixes (and that was just an example). Also, for how long and how good there has been iptables (just an example again) - the built-in filtering in recent wins.. oh, come on.
I would, yes, I really would agree on a decent comparison of the two kinds of OSes (despite being a linux user and fan for a long time) but only and only when they are compared as servers, and only apps and services would be compared which are supported by both sides (this again wouldn't tell everything, but would be a bit more realistic/appropriate IMHO).
p.s.: please don't take my cents as a wish for fighting, that was never my intention; just chating
(And before some1 comes and bashes me for not knowing/using win I have to tell that I also used every and each flavour of win since ages, not as a lame user, but as a developer. And I'm using them on a daily basis.)
microsoft don`t care about security.... "security by obscurity" is their way to handle this
**** them
microsoft don`t care about security.... "security by obscurity" is their way to handle this
**** them
actually no. they have taken good security practices and applied them. the first was to turn off unnecessary services, and then they have recoded to fix flaws.
also, for win2000 clients and above, you can turn off netbios completely for file sharing.
enjoy linux and learn to promote it instead of bashing other OS's that you haven't kept up with.
What disturbes me though is that when a linux-man tries to defend some of the best features and properties of a linux, he is almost every time told that he doesn't know Win enough so just stop.
When m$ promotes features and properties of it's Wins, that's called marketing and cheered upon.
"bashing other OS's that you haven't kept up with" - that doesn't seem the *nix way...
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.